Back in November, researchers at the University at Buffalo School of Management published a study tracing the roots of player loyalties in a variety of MMO environments. The study outlined the mentalities of MMO gamers and the things that successfully encouraged them to keep coming back for more looting, more grinding, and more /hugging. Most importantly, the study declared that an MMO that increases loyalty by just 5% can increase profits by 25-95%.

I'd love to see a non-Korean version of that study using modern MMOs.

One concept I found interesting regardless is the discussion about "cognitive lock-in" -- the period of adjustment to a new MMO's way of doing things. There seems to be this idea that these periods are "necessary evil" that you have to persevere through before the actual enjoyment begins (which may go a long way toward explaining WOW-interface design cloning.) Ironically, for me, this is the most enjoyable part of new MMOs. I may be atypical but I enjoy learning the new system... and then I get bored.

Back in November, researchers at the University at Buffalo School of Management published a study tracing the roots of player loyalties in a variety of MMO environments. The study outlined the mentalities of MMO gamers and the things that successfully encouraged them to keep coming back for more looting, more grinding, and more /hugging. Most importantly, the study declared that an MMO that increases loyalty by just 5% can increase profits by 25-95%.

There is no conflict between being successful with low retention in a F2P MMO, and this study.

What you need in a F2P MMO .. is not a high AVERAGE retention, but high retention of the whales. There is a big difference. Since the whales consist of only a very small percentage of the population (the convention wisdom is way less than 1% but let's use the more generous 1% number), even if 99% of the population is churning, it still can make a lot of money. And churn, while high, is probably no where close to 99%.

So the key is to keep the big spending players loyal, the rest of the players are just content, and replaceable.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

There is no conflict between being successful with low retention in a F2P MMO, and this study.

What you need in a F2P MMO .. is not a high AVERAGE retention, but high retention of the whales. There is a big difference. Since the whales consist of only a very small percentage of the population (the convention wisdom is way less than 1% but let's use the more generous 1% number), even if 99% of the population is churning, it still can make a lot of money. And churn, while high, is probably no where close to 99%.

So the key is to keep the big spending players loyal, the rest of the players are just content, and replaceable.

That makes sense in theory, but where are these big spenders coming from and why are they sticking around? Putting aside the fact that your hypothetical game is so bad that nearly no one sticks with it, it's community, not content, that makes MMOs sticky. We can debate the form that community should take, but without any social ties between players, why would someone choose to invest money in the game?

I grant you, it's possible. There could be F2P MMOs out there being supported by a few hundred insane people. But to depend on that? It seems riskier than trying something new.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Greyface

That makes sense in theory, but where are these big spenders coming from and why are they sticking around? Putting aside the fact that your hypothetical game is so bad that nearly no one sticks with it, it's community, not content, that makes MMOs sticky. We can debate the form that community should take, but without any social ties between players, why would someone choose to invest money in the game?

I grant you, it's possible. There could be F2P MMOs out there being supported by a few hundred insane people. But to depend on that? It seems riskier than trying something new.

Content that appeals to players will sell and a portion of those players will stick with it.

Whether that content appeals to your personal taste is another issue.

Gdemami -Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

Report this post

Content that appeals to players will sell and a portion of those players will stick with it.

Whether that content appeals to your personal taste is another issue.

Granted. But the issue we're talking about at the moment is retention -- specifically, retention of big spenders. Developer created content is, by definition, finite. The kind of player who will drop large amounts of money in a cash shop over long periods of time is probably also the kind of player who consumes content rather quickly. I'm not aware of any developer that can crank out updates as quickly as hardcore players can blow through it.

What happens when the well runs dry? What's keeping the whales around if they haven't become a part of any kind of community? There are dozens of games with substantially similar gameplay just waiting to welcome them and their money.

I'm not arguing that F2P games with high churn can't be profitable. They sometimes are, if only for a short time. You can also make money in real estate by stripping copper pipes and wiring out of condemned houses. Does that make me wrong for wanting a nice neighborhood where I can put down roots?

Report this post

Content that appeals to players will sell and a portion of those players will stick with it.

Whether that content appeals to your personal taste is another issue.

Granted. But the issue we're talking about at the moment is retention -- specifically, retention of big spenders. Developer created content is, by definition, finite. The kind of player who will drop large amounts of money in a cash shop over long periods of time is probably also the kind of player who consumes content rather quickly. I'm not aware of any developer that can crank out updates as quickly as hardcore players can blow through it.

What happens when the well runs dry? What's keeping the whales around if they haven't become a part of any kind of community? There are dozens of games with substantially similar gameplay just waiting to welcome them and their money.

I'm not arguing that F2P games with high churn can't be profitable. They sometimes are, if only for a short time. You can also make money in real estate by stripping copper pipes and wiring out of condemned houses. Does that make me wrong for wanting a nice neighborhood where I can put down roots?

I don't think I've commented on this thread yet, although I've read through it a few times. Excellent points and I don't think I disagree with any of them. Especially about the story part. Story is one thing that should be saved for an individual experience, not in a shared multiplayer world. Lore and allowing a players actions to tell their story should be the focus.

To the quoted piece, I think part of the reason for lack of retention is lack of adversity as well. There's not a whole lot of danger in MMOs anymore, especially while leveling to max, that really makes the times you do succeed sweet. Failure does not seem like a real possibility anymore and instead of having lows and highs in the game, it's all about middleground because there really is no option for failure. Lows are a small bump in the road while the highs are basically reaching your intended destination with only the hassle of the drive. Not as compelling and not much reason to continue on with the journey. Kind of like these quotes to describe it beceause it's about how I feel about the current state.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I guess it depends on what your definition of story is. I think it's somewhat pointless to talk about story from the vantage of whether it should be in game or not, because I see it as we're all telling a story whether we want to or not. I think interactive story is what most people want; if it's too scripted it will not engage the listener, however if it's formless it becomes grandiose and unpalatable. Interactive is the key word. As someone who has told stories and listened to them I understand it fills a basic human need. It doesn't even have to have an end (one of my favorite quotes from waking life: "the trick is to remain in a state of continual departure while always arriving; saves on introductions and goodbyes") but it's tied to everything I do. I guess I take a broad view of what a story is (and it's funny you should mention Edgar Allen Poe, a good source of re-telling). On the one hand I see it as a lost art, on the other I have empathy for those jaded with the packaged/processed fare that passes for a full-course meal in popular media to discard the concept wholly. Find whatever speaks to you.

"To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the CrossAuthored 110 missions in VendettaOnlineCheck it out on Steam

Report this post

There is no conflict between being successful with low retention in a F2P MMO, and this study.

What you need in a F2P MMO .. is not a high AVERAGE retention, but high retention of the whales. There is a big difference. Since the whales consist of only a very small percentage of the population (the convention wisdom is way less than 1% but let's use the more generous 1% number), even if 99% of the population is churning, it still can make a lot of money. And churn, while high, is probably no where close to 99%.

So the key is to keep the big spending players loyal, the rest of the players are just content, and replaceable.

That makes sense in theory, but where are these big spenders coming from and why are they sticking around? Putting aside the fact that your hypothetical game is so bad that nearly no one sticks with it, it's community, not content, that makes MMOs sticky. We can debate the form that community should take, but without any social ties between players, why would someone choose to invest money in the game?

I grant you, it's possible. There could be F2P MMOs out there being supported by a few hundred insane people. But to depend on that? It seems riskier than trying something new.

Bad assumption.

1) No one says players will stick with a good game. You can have good short games .. or good games that you only like a portion.

2) You are guessing how it works. In fact, evidence (the article i quote) that average players stick around a F2P MMO for 3-4 months. So it is not like everyone sticks around for long. And obviously there are enough whales or else STO, DCUO, DDO and LOTRO will not be still running, and ADDING content.

3) I suppose it depends on the different preferences of players. What you like is different from what i like. It is not difficult to imagine that a game like STO (as an example, you can find others) clicks with a few hundred, or even thousands of people (out of milions transcient) and these gaming trekkies will stick with the game and spends lots of money because for whatever reason, they love the star ships, they love the uniforms, they have to become the most powerful vice admirals to fight klingons. For you ... you will go in and do some star ship battle and have fun for a while .. when the novelty wear off, you move on.

That is probably closer to what is happening than all these guess that you have.

Report this post

Content that appeals to players will sell and a portion of those players will stick with it.

Whether that content appeals to your personal taste is another issue.

Granted. But the issue we're talking about at the moment is retention -- specifically, retention of big spenders. Developer created content is, by definition, finite. The kind of player who will drop large amounts of money in a cash shop over long periods of time is probably also the kind of player who consumes content rather quickly. I'm not aware of any developer that can crank out updates as quickly as hardcore players can blow through it.

What happens when the well runs dry? What's keeping the whales around if they haven't become a part of any kind of community? There are dozens of games with substantially similar gameplay just waiting to welcome them and their money.

I'm not arguing that F2P games with high churn can't be profitable. They sometimes are, if only for a short time. You can also make money in real estate by stripping copper pipes and wiring out of condemned houses. Does that make me wrong for wanting a nice neighborhood where I can put down roots?

The point is AVERAGE retention does not have to be high. YOu wrongly assume that whatever keep the whales around will keep the free players around. Obviously it does not work that way.

Different things keep different players around. A dev only need to figure out what keep the whales around (or create new ones). If 90% of the free players churn, no harm done. And why do you assume community is the only thing to keep people around. How about investment? If i dump $1000 into my starship, i would be attached to it, right? I would like to spend $10 more next week to get my new ship skin right? Tons of reasons beyond community.

And "dozens of games with substantially similar gameplay" is just plain wrong for many F2P games.

What is the alternative to STO? There is no other Star Trek MMO .. not even a recent alternative to Star Trek single player game. If you want STar Trek, STO is it.

Ditto for D&D.

Ditto for LOTRO.

Don't tell me you don't know that some are crazy for those settings.

Not only F2P is demonstratable to be profitable .. many F2P games are adding content.

Of course you can want some other type of games ... but once again, it is not hard to see retention of the WHOLE population does not have to be the focus to make money. Just retaining the whales is enough.

Report this post

I was only citing your earlier "99% churn" example. I doubt very many games actually achieve that dubious honor -- The War Z maybe.

1) No one says players will stick with a good game. You can have good short games .. or good games that you only like a portion.

For some types of games, short is alright. For MMOs, short is a design flaw. There are games surviving with low retention, but I doubt that was the intention.

Different things keep different players around. A dev only need to figure out what keep the whales around (or create new ones). If 90% of the free players churn, no harm done. And why do you assume community is the only thing to keep people around. How about investment? If i dump $1000 into my starship, i would be attached to it, right? I would like to spend $10 more next week to get my new ship skin right? Tons of reasons beyond community.

What you describe is called Post-Purchase Rationalizarion. It's a form of irrational thinking. It works, I'll give you that. But I really think we should aspire to more.

Of course you can want some other type of games ... but once again, it is not hard to see retention of the WHOLE population does not have to be the focus to make money. Just retaining the whales is enough.

So you're saying that "niche" games can do alright. I agree. My particular niche, however, is underserved. And there's a world of difference between getting by and thriving. The genre, at the moment, is just getting by. I maintain that an MMO that combines a player-driven, persistant world with accessible gameplay will retain more than just a niche audience. It's never been attempted.

The intent of my original post was to point out the flawed, black-or-white, us-or-them thinking that many MMO designers and players seem to be trapped in -- e.g. that there is no space between Walt Disney and Ayn Rand. Your response is another example of a false choice. F2P games with a high churn can do well enough to get by. Of course they can. But we shouldn't mistake the moderate success of mediocre games for the idea that mediocrity is all that's possible.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Well just look at the mmo genre as a whole. Guess what they all make the same game! Almost every single one of them do it. They copy and paste everyone else's ideas. Just imagine if every company who was making a mmo gave us something different. The mmo genre would be a much pleasant place for gamers for the long term. Nice post OP!

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Normandy7Well just look at the mmo genre as a whole. Guess what they all make the same game! Almost every single one of them do it. They copy and paste everyone else's ideas. Just imagine if every company who was making a mmo gave us something different. The mmo genre would be a much pleasant place for gamers for the long term. Nice post OP!

Only if you are only looking at a specific style of game. There are lots of variations on the market.

Report this post

There is no conflict between being successful with low retention in a F2P MMO, and this study.

What you need in a F2P MMO .. is not a high AVERAGE retention, but high retention of the whales. There is a big difference. Since the whales consist of only a very small percentage of the population (the convention wisdom is way less than 1% but let's use the more generous 1% number), even if 99% of the population is churning, it still can make a lot of money. And churn, while high, is probably no where close to 99%.

So the key is to keep the big spending players loyal, the rest of the players are just content, and replaceable.

That makes sense in theory, but where are these big spenders coming from and why are they sticking around? Putting aside the fact that your hypothetical game is so bad that nearly no one sticks with it, it's community, not content, that makes MMOs sticky. We can debate the form that community should take, but without any social ties between players, why would someone choose to invest money in the game?

I grant you, it's possible. There could be F2P MMOs out there being supported by a few hundred insane people. But to depend on that? It seems riskier than trying something new.

What I would like to know is why companies are catering to f2p players that have this kind of mindset?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You are right. I don't "support" anything. I am a consumer and i consumer entertainment product. If the price is compete down to zero, i will take it. I am not going to donate money to company to "support" anything."------------------------- [I'd pay $25 a month for a game that could keep me entralled for three or more years.]

"Why should i do that when there are 20 games that can last me 3 month each, and they are all free?"-------------------------"i never put money into the game thoug. In fact, i made a small amount. I still have a $40+ and i use d3 money to buy mop."-------------------------"Personally, there are enough fun F2P that i don't see a reason ever to pay for a sub, and i probably won't."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it strictly so possible investors see big numbers so think an investment in it will pay off, because if that is the sole reason for these games no wonder the quality has gone so downhill in terms of long-term enjoyable entertainment.

Kind of like garbage movies we've all experienced with big names in them that draw a large crowd on opening week but then crash and burn with their videos being sold for $1 in liquidation stores, compared to epic movies that have their fans paying to see the same movie multiple times then paying premium for all versions of it once it hits retail(vhs, dvd, blue-ray, collections, art books, etc.)

If I were a developer/suit I'd much rather have players that want to pay to play my game and yes the free loaders may be able to try out the game on restrictive free trials but if they want to play past the first 10 levels or interact with anyone else or even play longer than 10 days they will have to p2p because if they don't want to invest in my game and become part of the community of paying players, why would I want them?

Servers aren't free to run or maintain and neither are repairing the problems that freeloaders tend to bring in the form of goldsellers and exploiters.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Aeolyn

What I would like to know is why companies are catering to f2p players that have this kind of mindset?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "You are right. I don't "support" anything. I am a consumer and i consumer entertainment product. If the price is compete down to zero, i will take it. I am not going to donate money to company to "support" anything." ------------------------- [I'd pay $25 a month for a game that could keep me entralled for three or more years.]

"Why should i do that when there are 20 games that can last me 3 month each, and they are all free?" ------------------------- "i never put money into the game thoug. In fact, i made a small amount. I still have a $40+ and i use d3 money to buy mop." ------------------------- "Personally, there are enough fun F2P that i don't see a reason ever to pay for a sub, and i probably won't." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because there are few other mindsets? You have to cater to what is there.

If I were a developer/suit I'd much rather have players that want to pay to play my game and yes the free loaders may be able to try out the game on restrictive free trials but if they want to play past the first 10 levels or interact with anyone else or even play longer than 10 days they will have to p2p because if they don't want to invest in my game and become part of the community of paying players, why would I want them?

You sound as if they have a choice. The F2P model is very clear. You attract the free players to be content for the whales, and you try to make sure the whales a) stay, and b) pays.

You want them because a) they are content, and b) they *may* become paying customers.

"Investing in my game" .. don't make me laugh.

Servers aren't free to run or maintain and neither are repairing the problems that freeloaders tend to bring in the form of goldsellers and exploiters.

Again, the F2P model is not a mystery. There are plenty of articles on the web about how it works. And it works on many MMOs. And keeping everyone "invest" in the game, and play "a really long long time" is not one of the key characteristic of this model.

Report this post

Because there are few other mindsets? You have to cater to what is there.

You sound as if they have a choice. The F2P model is very clear. You attract the free players to be content for the whales, and you try to make sure the whales a) stay, and b) pays.

You want them because a) they are content, and b) they *may* become paying customers.

"Investing in my game" .. don't make me laugh.

Again, the F2P model is not a mystery. There are plenty of articles on the web about how it works. And it works on many MMOs. And keeping everyone "invest" in the game, and play "a really long long time" is not one of the key characteristic of this model.

The race to the bottom is often crowded.... that doesn't mean it's a good choice. In fact, it's usually the hard choices that are the most rewarding in the long run.

As for your apparently negative attitude towards games that people feel invested enough in their characters and the world they play in that they actually want to spend more than a few months in it, I'm sorry you don't seem to have ever experienced that kind of entertainment or at least appreciate that others have and would like to continue to do so and would even *gasp* be willing to pay a sub for. Imo it's much more satisfying than spending a couple of weeks or so racing to endgame, getting bored and then running to the next one and then the next one, etc.

Compare it if you will to reading a great series of books compared to knock off romance novels. I don't see many lining up for the next rinse and repeat harlequin romance but when Rowlings put out a new book in her Potter series there were lineups and preorders. Yes they both sell but if you were a publisher, which would you rather have the rights to sell?

So unless these companies are not interested in long term rewards for both them and their consumers(that keeps them coming back for more), but would rather take minimal short term profits, rinse and repeat, it's us the consumers that are the big losers, whether you pay or not it's still time taken from your life that's being wasted and from what most gaming forums seem to be reflecting, for mostly substandard products.

I think gaming companies need to take a good hard look at the future of gaming and decide if they really want to keep the f2p model where they're all racing after the few "whales" as you call them while they give most of their product away free, or if they'd rather go back to selling quality games to loyal customers(note I didn't say consumers).

Report this post

The race to the bottom is often crowded.... that doesn't mean it's a good choice. In fact, it's usually the hard choices that are the most rewarding in the long run.

LOL .. how patroniziing. What you like is top and all others is "to the bottom"? This kind of elitism is just sad. YOu just can't accept others enjoy other types of gamepaly, can you?

I think gaming companies need to take a good hard look at the future of gaming and decide if they really want to keep the f2p model where they're all racing after the few "whales" as you call them while they give most of their product away free, or if they'd rather go back to selling quality games to loyal customers(note I didn't say consumers).

They took a hard look at subs .. and you know what they see ... F2P is eating up sub market share in the last two years. Wishful thinking can't turn back the tide.

All this hoopla about quality. STO has much better combat mechanics, and story mission than Eve .. and that is quality you get for FREE. Yeah, i am playing quality games, at NO sub .. and i call that a win-win.

Report this post

The race to the bottom is often crowded.... that doesn't mean it's a good choice. In fact, it's usually the hard choices that are the most rewarding in the long run.

LOL .. how patroniziing. What you like is top and all others is "to the bottom"? This kind of elitism is just sad. YOu just can't accept others enjoy other types of gamepaly, can you?

I think gaming companies need to take a good hard look at the future of gaming and decide if they really want to keep the f2p model where they're all racing after the few "whales" as you call them while they give most of their product away free, or if they'd rather go back to selling quality games to loyal customers(note I didn't say consumers).

They took a hard look at subs .. and you know what they see ... F2P is eating up sub market share in the last two years. Wishful thinking can't turn back the tide.

All this hoopla about quality. STO has much better combat mechanics, and story mission than Eve .. and that is quality you get for FREE. Yeah, i am playing quality games, at NO sub .. and i call that a win-win.

Patronizing? Actually I would say it's those who have an entitlement attitude that as long as they can play for free they don't care about anyone else's playstyle.

As for win-win, who exactly "wins" besides those who don't pay for any of it yet will defend to the death their belief that they have a right to the same gameplay as those who do(ie. the right to get everything ingame without any rl cash)?

Eventually most of those "whale" players as you call them, will learn that paying for gameplay through cash shop nickel and diming is costing them much more than a simple sub would have and will do one of three things;

1)stop playing those kind of games(f2p, p2w, etc.) and go back to console gaming where once you pay for a game it's yours( no cash shops or subs)

2)play the cash shop types of games only like you do for free(hmm, no "whales" and only freeloaders, yup a real win-win for those companies and their investors)

3)deliberately search out sub games(if there are any left....) that usually offer truly free trials before they commit to them

I admit I'm somewhere between the last two options currently and I know quite a few other rl players that are in the same position, after all who wouldn't want to be able to play for free? The reality is that if someone doesn't pay then there won't be any games for anyone.

Report this post

Patronizing? Actually I would say it's those who have an entitlement attitude that as long as they can play for free they don't care about anyone else's playstyle.

Entitlement? to what? Of course i don't care about anyone else playstyle. That is taking what is there in the market. If my playstyle is not there, i just go do something else, unlike people here who bitch and moan all day. Now THAT is an entitlement attitude. Why do you think dev owe you a virtual world MMO?

As for win-win, who exactly "wins" besides those who don't pay for any of it yet will defend to the death their belief that they have a right to the same gameplay as those who do(ie. the right to get everything ingame without any rl cash)?

Who says free players should have the same gameplay? IT is only fair that the whales get some advantage, don't you think? WIn-win ... i play for free (I win). Dev get the whales (they win). The whales can spend and have advantages .. so they win too.

Eventually most of those "whale" players as you call them, will learn that paying for gameplay through cash shop nickel and diming is costing them much more than a simple sub would have and will do one of three things;

1)stop playing those kind of games(f2p, p2w, etc.) and go back to console gaming where once you pay for a game it's yours( no cash shops or subs)

2)play the cash shop types of games only like you do for free(hmm, no "whales" and only freeloaders, yup a real win-win for those companies and their investors)

3)deliberately search out sub games(if there are any left....) that usually offer truly free trials before they commit to them

Or 4) They think it is great that they can spend as much as they want for stuff in game, and continue. Given the F2P market is growing, i doubt whales are doing 1-3 ... i think there are more and more whales. In fact, the amount of money spent on F2P games are GROWING. YOu know, that is a FACT, right?

I admit I'm somewhere between the last two options currently and I know quite a few other rl players that are in the same position, after all who wouldn't want to be able to play for free? The reality is that if someone doesn't pay then there won't be any games for anyone.

Yeah .. but that is not going to happen anytime soon. I will worry when there is no game to play. Right now my problem is there are TOO MANY games, and too little time.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by nariusseldonEntitlement? to what? Of course i don't care about anyone else playstyle. That is taking what is there in the market. If my playstyle is not there, i just go do something else, unlike people here who bitch and moan all day. Now THAT is an entitlement attitude. Why do you think dev owe you a virtual world MMO?

They only owe those who are willing to actually pay them, which I am and apparently you are not:

Originally posted by nariusseldon "F2P is free for a majority, as demonstrated by data. It is not free for everyone .. someone has to pay. But a majority does not. And usually only a very small percentage pay a lot.

So yeah .. it is free for me .. which what is important."

IMO the f2p path is a bad path, all it does is let people who don't care enough about a game to support it still impact it and most often not in a favourable way. ie.exploiters, goldsellers.

Originally posted by nariusseldon Who says free players should have the same gameplay? IT is only fair that the whales get some advantage, don't you think? WIn-win ... i play for free (I win). Dev get the whales (they win). The whales can spend and have advantages .. so they win too.

Lol, read any forum and it's always the freeloaders who are qqing about not being able to do or get whatever the fremium or "whales" have.

Re your assertion that "whales" win, I doubt most of them would agree when they see the freeloaders negatively impacting their gameplay/world, imo most of those who are willing to spend rl cash in the cash shops are the same players that had no problem with subbing to start with.

Originally posted by nariusseldon Or 4) They think it is great that they can spend as much as they want for stuff in game, and continue. Given the F2P market is growing, i doubt whales are doing 1-3 ... i think there are more and more whales. In fact, the amount of money spent on F2P games are GROWING. YOu know, that is a FACT, right?

Haha, well I don't know ANY "whales" that think it's great so unless you have proof for your facts? They do ime however want to keep playing the game they feel invested in after having purchased the hard copy or having previously subbed it before it went f2p, they see no other option if they don't want their game to die. As for the f2p market growing, hmm maybe because more and more games are trading in their subs for cash shops and the previous subscribers haven't made the mental adjustment yet that they too can play for free, at least until the game shuts down....

Originally posted by nariusseldon Yeah .. but that is not going to happen anytime soon. I will worry when there is no game to play. Right now my problem is there are TOO MANY games, and too little time.

Maybe not yet but you can see it coming, even rich people don't like getting stuck with the bill all the time(lol just look at US politics for a prime example of the outrage...). Anyway, I wish I could be as blase as you about the future of gaming but considering how quickly the whole industry has changed in the last ten years I really don't think there will be much warning when it all comes crashing down.